1160:…that is, under the condition that it would only be a re-direct for the title (via disambiguation), not a merge. A merge would necessitate moving large chunks of text to the Garage rock article (which is already discusses a lot of the same issues and is admittedly quite long). Furthermore, I would not want to see any changes happen in the garage rock article that might knock it off its current balance. The GR article currently treats the term “garage punk” as an alternate term for 60s garage rock, not as something distinct or separate (until it gets to the Revivals section in the 1980s). For 60s bands (and garage in sum total), "garage rock" is the official Knowledge category and "garage punk" (along with "60s punk", etc.) are the unofficial/alternate terms that fans (such as me) and commentators often use.
1142:” (both terms are interchangeable when used for 60s bands). While their prescription is still my preference (for the sake of avoiding confusion), Ilovetopaint has come up a possible alternative solution--i.e. to retain saying “garage punk” in the acid rock article, but redirect (via disambiguation) the term to the garage rock article. He has an interesting idea about re-naming the current Garage punk article to more clearly reflect the post-1980s subgenre. It is not for me to decide what terminology ends up getting used in the acid rock article, but apart from that, the re-directs are an interesting thought.
690:
pardon me if I think you could re-think your position on the "garage punk" thing here and elsewhere. So, my debate on the "garage punk" issue is in no way meant to be negative, but just to help readers not get confused. Incidentally, I'd like readers to know more about the 60s roots of punk, but I know the best way to do that is, rather than try to re-frame the way
Knowledge categorizes the genres, to just give the background int the articles--and, of course, to refer them to the
303:
if "Good
Article" is to mean anything – of approaching each nomination with a view to satisfying each and every concern that any GA reviewer might bring. And from all I've seen, many would not consider an article adequately sourced even with just a single ref in need of a page number (or alternatively, linked to a preview), nor would they think it's acceptable to have any tags ("by whom?", "verification needed", "repetition", etc) appearing
876:
historical perspective. Editors should also de-emphasize sources that are not reflective of the prevailing view. You simply do not have enough sources to justify changing the way
Knowledge defines garage punk--and the way you use it here is causing problems for this particular article. I realize that genre definitions are not set in stone. But, it takes a change in public perception, reflected by a
1039:
true, you will need to find more reliable sources that support it. (BTW, I was there when punk rock burst on the scene: "punk" brought forth fresh ideas & attitudes that hadn't been present in rock for a while, if ever; the acid/psychedelic rock genre embraced a very distinct & dissimilar vibe. I may not know all of the story, but I know enough to have a sense what the story is about.)
467:) make it clear that "punk" existed in the '60s, but that the music did not coalesce into a readily-distinguishable style until the mid '70s. We can't really write that acid rock grew from "garage bands" because it would misrepresent the source's use of specific terminology - it would be like writing "doom metal evolved from guitar bands" instead of "heavy metal bands".
629:
early
Ramones was acid rock, though they may have sound like bad acid rock at some of the early practices. It's so much simpler just to remove "1960s punk" and let "garage rock" suffice, especially considering (I assume) the reference is to garage bands such as ? and the Mysterians (the band first described as "punk") and the Chocolate Watch Band, etc.
42:
1203:
me: either I need to learn much, much more about rock, or it's simply someone's hobby horse that has no value to the rest of us. But the most important part is that I offered some honest criticism & as far as I can see, nothing was done with it. Beyond what I wrote being lightly dismissed after I pushed for a response.
1027:
In your initial response, you only touched on the merge issue, the use of the word "punk", & your agreement that it needed more content. I pointed out that the merge proposal was open, & presented a barrier to GA status; I also solicited a third party to close that proposal, so that point was
474:
is a more comprehensive "Characteristics" section. I recall a book - can't remember which - that discusses what makes sounds "psychedelic" while highlighting both 1960s psychedelic rock and 1980s acid house. I intended on citing it in the article someday; the only reason I haven't yet is because it's
384:
One detail that needs to be kept in mind is that musicians' styles often change. For example, early
Grateful Dead (IMHO, one of the best known acid rock bands -- consider "Anthem of the Sun" & "Aoxomoxoa") is very different from their later work. The same can be said for Pink Floyd: "Piper at the
1249:
Statements about where the genre evolved from are central to the article. And IMO statements that "garage punk" (or even punk) significantly existed as a genre in the 60's and that acid rock evolved form it are both patently false. In non-Knowledge terms, this is from a fossil that was immersed in
1038:
While I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, I remain unconvinced that "garage punk" as punk & not garage rock influenced acid rock. I don't care that you have a source that uses the word -- it's just one source, & arrogates acid rock as part of an unrelated genre. To prove that statement is
543:
When the term "garage punk" is used by commentators to refer to 60s bands, it almost automatically and invariably refers to garage rock. The term "garage punk" is also used by commentators to refer to garage rock as a whole (new and old). While these usages are OK in colloquial terms, at
Knowledge
519:
influence. When used to designate 60s music, the two terms "garage punk" and "garage rock" are interchangeable. So, the term "garage rock" can be substituted here (for what the sources called "garage punk")--it is OK. If we change it to the term "garage rock", it will be blue-linked to the garage
501:
The problem is that the terms of early 70s critics never caught on in the larger public mind and that, in the mid-to-late 70s, the term "punk" shifted to the music coming out of the New York and London scenes, so in the public mind, "punk rock" was thought of as a new thing and came to be associated
302:
In which case the reference should carry a link to the preview. Some GA reviewers are tougher than others, or focus on certain aspects of article quality more than on other areas, but overall, the standard of GAs has risen hugely since 2012/13, from my experience. It's a case – well, it should be so
1304:
The main difficulty with the article is that the subject is "loosely defined" and "fairly meaningless" (I quote from the article, both quotes are cited), overlapping largely with other categories. Editors more familiar with the genre may need to take a view on whether the topic is sufficiently well
406:
I don't mean to be harsh in my criticism; there is a lot of good things in this article, such as the selection of music snippets to illustrate the genre. But unless the merge proposal is rapidly resolved, & all of the tags cleaned up, I'll need to fail this nomination regardless of what I think
1202:
I've been giving this a lot of thought, & I simply can't approve this article as a GA. Part of the reason, of course, is that the citations just don't convince me of some of the points. Part of it is that the language about garage punk/garage rock is part of a dialogue that has no relevance to
866:
Now please. No one could ever say that terms rock and punk are the same thing, whereas when sources speak of "garage punk" in the 60s, they invariably mean "garage punk" and "garage rock" as interchangeable terms, and you know that--we have ample sources such as Aaron to demonstrate that. So, it
628:
I would suggest simply removing reference to punk in the opening paragraph unless an editor later in the article fleshes out why the
Ramones sound has its roots in the acid rock of Yardbirds/Zeppelin & MC5 & Stooges & VU. But then, one would never say Led Zep I is a punk record or that
643:
I'd also like to recommend
Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, the first collected works of Lester Bangs, edited by Greil Marcus. Bangs and Marsh were compadres in their garage punk - skronk sensibility, though Marsh not so into it as Bangs. I think it would clear up a lot of the issues r.e.
875:
article, whose primary reason is to describe the post-80s subgenre. Furthermore, you can't just go by what one or two sources say, when you are dealing whole genres. You have to take into account the larger prevailing view, expressed in a multiplicity of sources and over a course of time--in a
676:
The way they use the term "garage punk" is as garage rock. If we fail to make this necessary transposition of terms, then the readership will get confused. I can guarantee that I have enough experience covering the garage rock topic to say that almost all of the time, if a source uses the term
363:
Returning to the proposal to merge with article, I believe this touches on an important issue (although as that discussion now stands, the proposal is likely to fail): the article does not make a sufficiently strong argument that acid rock & psychedelic rock are two distinct genres. (For the
170:
Quick comment as I was invited here to take part in the discussion about a possible merge with
Psychedelic rock. While reading this article, I got so distracted by the number of tags, mostly appearing in the references. (From memory, there are 4 or 5 in the Definitions section alone.) This needs
1042:
Nevertheless, we both agreed this article needed more content; I specifically pointed out "the absence of any mention of light shows & other theatrics". None of this has been added in the weeks since I took this review on. If you intend on adding this material, I feel the review can proceed
689:
had greater musical influence on the form. You know that from extensive experience reading and writing about pre-Sgt. Pepper albums, you know that Sgt. Pepper was more of a culmination than an inception. I know that you are eminently knowledgeable about acid rock--that is beyond debate. But,
677:"garage punk" regarding 60s music, it means garage rock. When referring to a whole genre or subgenre of music, we must take a lot of things into account and look beyond just a few sources. Incidentally, this is why I applaud you for correctly pointing out the over-emphasis on the influence of
510:
became the preferred terms (even though 60s garage fans and many of its commentators still use "punk" and "garage punk" to refer to 60s groups). Unfortunately, here at
Knowledge we have to live with the larger public perception, and so our categories for genres (and references to them) must be
359:
I haven't dug into the references yet, but I will note that, no matter their form, they should have sufficient detail that someone who does not know the literature can find the reference. By "have sufficient detail", I would expect in this instance page number in every instance -- even one-page
531:
subgenre (distinct from the rest of garage rock), it refers to bands from the later 80s and beyond who did a louder, updated form of garage that also incorporated 70s punk influences--that was what the garage punk article traditionally focused on as a subgenre (before recent changes). It is
502:
with post-1975 music. Personally, I think this was a mistake, and, as a result, most people know very little about the actual roots of punk--but that is what became the reality. In light of this, by the late 70s, new terms had to be to be found for the earlier punk music of the 1960s, so
562:
The sentences at the end of the first paragraph treat "60s punk" and "garage rock" as something not only different from each other and different from the use of "garage punk" at the beginning of the opening paragraph. Terms such as "60s punk", ""garage punk", and "garage rock" are all
1043:
regardless whether we agree on the other points; it is possible that the article can even achieve GA. Otherwise, I can only conclude you aren't interested in getting the article to GA at this time. (PS, you are always empowered to prod a GA reviewer if she/he is not active enough.) --
1325:
I looked at the second opinions, changes made to the article since my last review, & none contradicted the opinions I offered above; I am failing this article. Further, two separate persons offered suggestions that were not acted upon. IMHO, this article suffers from a case of
1173:
I would be open to the possibility of re-naming current Garage punk article something along the lines of what Ilovetpaint has proposed. It could perhaps be re-named as "Garage punk (post-1980s genre)" being that the subgenre reached its peak in the 1990s and stretched into the
375:
Another issue I have is that the article states acid rock arose from "garage punk". That is a term I found confusing: I associate the musical use of "punk" with the 70s movement (e.g., Sex Pistols, The Ramones, etc.), & I suspect this would confuse many non-experts; even
520:
rock article, and there readers there can learn about how the background and etymology and how term "garage punk" and "60s punk" can be used alternately for garage rock, etc. But, here, we don't want to pre-suppose/assume that kind of prior knowledge on the readers' part.
514:
It would be best to use the term "garage rock" in this article (rather than "garage punk) when speaking of garage influence on acid rock. That is perfectly OK--the sources will allow it. The sources cited here mentioning garage punk's influence on acid rock mean that as
1129:
has a point about punk’s 60s foundations. Of course, I recognize that the prevailing public view sees punk as a post-1975 thing--people are generally unaware of the earlier musical background. With this in mind, I understand some people’s concerns about using the term
986:.) I know I haven't been very active about this review, but I haven't seen any edits in response to my GA review from a month ago. Are you still interested in getting this article promoted to GA? Or should I just fail this, & you can resubmit it at another time? --
392:-- is the absence of any mention of light shows & other theatrics. Originally, rock-n-roll bands would simply stand in front of the audience & play their instruments. With the rise of these genres, bands would add light shows (e.g., the rock band in the movie
380:
is primarily about the music of the 70s & later. Regardless of the accuracy of this label, wouldn't it be more clear to use the label "garage bands"? Parents' garages have been the birth place of countless rock bands, so there is nothing to be ashamed of in these
1298:
The garage rock / punk issue should not be an obstruction to GA for this article. As an outsider, I'd not heard anything in the 1960s called "punk", so I'd have believed the term arose later, but the exact etymology is a matter for experts with reliable sources, not
1245:
Genres inevitably overlap, and genre articles inevitably need to be also about the genre name itself. And the latter is unique. So I don't consider overlap with other genres to be even the slightest minus for the existence or GA suitabiity of this
364:
record, I think they are two different genres.) In order to clinch this argument, IMHO there needs to be a recognized example of a band/song that can be considered psychedelic, yet is not acid rock. I'm not sure what example that could be, though --
917:, where does this review stand? It appears there are major disagreements between the nominator and a commenter, and I can't tell whether the issues you raised in your review have been addressed in the four weeks since you wrote them above. Thanks.
750:
Yes, but to use the term "garage rock" would not be oversimplifying at all, but rather just using the established Knowledge genre terminology. We don't need to simplify, but rather use the prescribed categories to avoid unnecessary confusion.
1206:
However I do not feel comfortable rejecting this outright. So I am going to ask for a second review, & if one is provided within 30 days, I'll consent to the outcome of the second review; if none is forthcoming, then it will be failed. --
493:
Note: My remarks here are intended to help move the GA process forward. I agree 100% with Ilovetoaint that punk music existed in the 1960s--in what would now be regarded as "prototypical" form (in the early 1970s it was thought of as
398:), which would be considered now very crude & unimpressive but at the time evoked the altered mental state of being stoned. And then there is Jimi Hendricks' famous response to The Who trashing their instruments on stage at
607:
We can't really write that acid rock grew from "garage bands" because it would misrepresent the source's use of specific terminology - it would be like writing "doom metal evolved from guitar bands" instead of "heavy metal
428:
Nobody has presented an argument for why the article should be merged except that the terms may be synonymous and cover some of the same ground - based on that reasoning alone, I don't see anyone suggesting a merge between
953:, it's been another couple of months, and there have since been two outside opinions added below per your request for a second opinion. It is time and past for you to make a decision regarding this nomination. Thank you.
1165:
We know that in the late 1980s a new wave of bands got tagged “garage punk” and the term got christened to designate a new and distinct subgenre apart from the rest of garage rock (with certain 60s bands such as
577:
Incidentally, I agree with Ilovetopaint that Acid rock should have its own article here, and most editors now agree--I think that debate is settled, so it should not inhibit the GA from going forward on that
241:
Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the
239:" number of tags is an immediate failure. Is 7 a large figure? 3 of those are asking for specific page numbers, which can't be fixed unless someone has a physical copy of the cited books. "
1241:
I saw the request for a 2nd opinion at wp:ga nominations. I can give it a more thorough look if desired, but at the moment I'll just reflect on two of the most discussed questions.
544:
we have to be careful not to pass off "garage punk" as a separate subgenre of 60s garage (it is not) or use it as the official category term for 60s garage rock (and risk confusion).
1100:. Historically, "garage punk" and "garage rock" have almost always been interchangeable, and it's not improper or unusual at all for somebody to locate garage punk to the '60s.--
475:
very complicated to summarize. I'd also need to grab some other sources, but it's rare that anybody writes about the subject beyond "distorted guitars and weird tape effects".--
571:
1250:
that music at that time. Or, in Knowledge terms, these statements are implausible and not solidly sourced or sourcable. But this is a fix that would only take a minute to do.
566:
These issues might seem "nitpicky", but they have to be addressed in order to to prevent confusion for readers (for additional discussion on the topic, see the talk page to
193:
There's 4 or 5 in the article total. The issues are trivial; GA articles don't need to be perfect, just enough that whatever issues it has could be fixed in five minutes.--
345:
The article does not appear to be stable. For one thing, there have been a lot of edits since I took on this review. Another is the proposal to merge this article with
341:
Sorry for disappearing right after I took on the review, but demands of Real Life kept my time for Knowledge to a minimum. But I'm here & I do have some concerns:
789:
There is no "established Knowledge genre terminology". Editors are instructed to use the same specific terminology that the sources use, as is so clearly outlined in
80:
173:(I mean, I thought the whole idea was, expand an article, ensure it's fully sourced, then it qualifies for a B rating, then perhaps it's worthy of GA nomination?)
1080:
punk came on the scene in the mid '70s, some writers who remembered that "punk" had already existed for several years opted to classify the newer groups under "
1068:
I'm in the process of adding more detail about the subject - only have one sentence so far. I'm not sure there's really much to say beyond a couple sentences.
70:
551:(distinct from garage rock), it refers to the post-80s bands. It can be used at Knowledge as an official category when referring to the post-80s subgere.
1293:
Refs 41 and 43 give Harv errors, they do not point to any citation, while in the bibliography, Lucky 2003 is not used by any ref; these need to be fixed.
1181:
So, I could consider what Ilovetopaint recommended--just as long as those procedures don't involve any additions or changes to the Garage rock article.
47:
352:
Another issue is, as JG66 pointed out, the number of tags. This directly affects the qualification that a GA article be well-written. There should be
1084:". And I believe the garage "punk" v. "rock" issue has been more or less resolved - I'm waiting for Garagepunk66 to propose an RfC that would move
171:
fixing, obviously – but I'm surprised someone nominates an article with "page needed", "by whom?", "verification needed", "repetition" tags, etc.
126:
1305:
defined to permit Good Article status, or whether it should be merged. If this issue cannot be resolved then the GA must be failed.
644:
punk and garage rock. Bangs would agree, fairly certain, that acid rock is something else, pharmaceutically speaking and otherwise.
166:
Been interested in this genre for a long time, although I admittedly know a lot less about it than I should. I'll give this a try.
52:
1001:
You talked about merging (6 of 7 were opposed), cleanup tags (which were resolved), the use of "garage punk" (this is done per
122:
75:
871:" and blue-link it to that article, which explains how both of those terms can be used, rather that directing everyone to the
156:
107:
1036:
not be as stable as it might appear, & I waited to see how that played out, since it touches on a point I brought up.
713:
1170:
being invoked as forefathers of that later movement, but not necessary implying any separate subgenre within the 60s).
649:
634:
99:
932:
I'm in conversation with the nominator on his Talk page. I hope to get this to the next step in a day or two. --
583:
So, if we can just get the "garage punk" terminology issue resolved, then the article should move closer to GA.
1089:
1002:
1310:
1231:
1105:
1018:
983:
972:
829:
790:
721:
615:
480:
394:
369:
289:
249:
198:
1186:
885:
880:
of evidence from a plethora of sources, before we re-orient the defining context of a genre at Knowledge.
756:
709:
699:
694:
article where they will get the most thorough briefing on the matter. It is all just meant for the best.
588:
365:
681:
on acid rock. Just because one or two sources exaggerated its influence, you correctly pointed out that
1288:
Remaining tags such as (near ref 27) and (refs 17, 22) need to be sorted out before GA can be awarded.
958:
922:
645:
630:
1227:
1126:
1101:
1014:
825:
717:
611:
476:
285:
245:
194:
1283:
Changes to other articles do not form any part of a GA process, and should not be considered further.
1327:
1263:
821:
563:
interchangeable with each other when referring to 60s bands--they are not three separate subgenres.
1306:
1278:
I wouldn't wish to intrude here, but there are some points that seem clear enough to an outsider.
1006:
1072:
It's not just one source - numerous authors use the term "garage punk" over "garage rock". Read
1335:
1212:
1182:
1048:
1029:
991:
937:
881:
752:
695:
584:
412:
150:
1013:
need this). So basically, I've agreed with only 2 of the concerns you've presented so far.--
954:
918:
471:
450:
389:
346:
470:
I absolutely agree that both articles are missing big chunks of content. One thing lost on
385:
Gates of Dawn" is a very different album from either "Dark Side of the Moon" or "The Wall".
284:
Don't know if you noticed but Google Books previews don't always show the page number.--
212:
1032:
then engaged in an argument over "garage punk", which suggested to me that the article
438:
312:
271:
220:
180:
115:
17:
215:, but also GA criteria point 2a and potentially 2c & d. Anyway, I count 7 tags.
1331:
1208:
1060:
1044:
987:
950:
933:
914:
408:
146:
1152:
1148:
1139:
1131:
1097:
1093:
1085:
1073:
982:(The following section, except for the last two paragraphs, has been moved from
872:
868:
691:
567:
524:
503:
460:
377:
498:
form--certain rock critics then used the term "punk" to designate 60s garage).
1167:
1081:
507:
1135:
976:
464:
442:
308:
267:
216:
176:
92:
547:
When the term "garage punk" is used by commentators to represent an actual
446:
434:
430:
422:
I appreciate the criticism. These are all fair points, for the most part.
1005:), mentioning specific bands' styles changing (superfluous, borders on
1339:
1314:
1267:
1235:
1216:
1190:
1109:
1052:
1022:
995:
962:
941:
926:
889:
833:
760:
725:
703:
653:
638:
619:
592:
484:
416:
316:
293:
275:
253:
224:
202:
184:
160:
349:. Lack of stability is a major reason to decline this article for GA.
1330:, preventing any meaningful criticism from being acted upon. --
1009:), and the omission of the genre's visual aspects (the article
388:
One major omission I noticed -- & it may also apply to
402:
Monterey: setting his own guitar on fire then playing it.
1223:
134:
103:
511:
tailored reflect prevailing views--to avoid confusion.
1147:
I could consider the idea of redirecting the title “
1076:. "Punk" was a term invented for '60s groups. When
601:, my opinion is that they should have written
820:I'm done going around in these circles. Read
8:
459:Most punk rock-related articles (including
1138:article and their preference for saying “
30:
61:
33:
606:
240:
234:
7:
24:
1224:Did you not notice these edits?
1074:Garage punk#Etymology and usage
605:." Once again, I'll restate: "
1:
890:12:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
834:20:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
761:18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
726:13:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
704:11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
620:09:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
593:22:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
485:16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
417:00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
317:04:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
294:08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
276:08:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
254:07:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
225:07:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
203:07:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
161:22:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
1315:10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
1236:12:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
1217:06:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
1191:06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
1110:09:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1053:07:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
1023:10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
996:10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
942:00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
927:22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
714:Knowledge:Oversimplification
185:07:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
407:of the article content. --
262:Of course you need to have
1355:
1340:06:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
963:01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
1268:18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1222:"Nothing was done" — ???
1090:Garage punk (1980s genre)
1028:moot. However, you &
654:08:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
639:08:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
527:" is used to designate a
213:WP:GA?#Immediate failures
867:would be better to say "
523:However, when the term "
370:Incense and Peppermints
984:User talk:Ilovetopaint
597:.tl;dr "When they say
366:Strawberry Alarm Clock
266:– don't be so stupid.
233:Note that it says a "
572:Dispute resolution
1003:WP:STICKTOSOURCES
174:
89:
88:
1346:
1260:
1070:Garage rock/punk
1064:
791:WP:STICKTOSOURCE
646:Morgan johndavid
631:Morgan johndavid
472:Psychedelic rock
451:Progressive rock
390:psychedelic rock
347:psychedelic rock
172:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1323:
1275:
1256:
1058:
980:
912:
710:WP:OVERSIMPLIFY
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1352:
1350:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1301:
1300:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1274:
1271:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1239:
1238:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
979:
975:nomination of
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
945:
944:
911:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
818:
815:
812:
809:
806:
803:
800:
797:
794:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
641:
581:
580:
579:
575:
564:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
545:
534:
533:
521:
512:
488:
487:
468:
454:
439:Hypnagogic pop
423:
404:
403:
386:
382:
373:
361:
357:
350:
339:
338:
336:
335:llywrch writes
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
297:
296:
279:
278:
257:
256:
228:
227:
206:
205:
188:
187:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
18:Talk:Acid rock
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1351:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:Chiswick Chap
1303:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1273:A few details
1272:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1259:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1204:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1172:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1092:and redirect
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
993:
989:
985:
978:
974:
970:
964:
960:
956:
952:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
939:
935:
931:
930:
929:
928:
924:
920:
916:
909:
891:
887:
883:
879:
874:
870:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
798:
795:
792:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
762:
758:
754:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
693:
688:
684:
680:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
655:
651:
647:
642:
640:
636:
632:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
582:
576:
573:
570:, as well as
569:
565:
561:
560:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
513:
509:
505:
500:
499:
497:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
473:
469:
466:
462:
458:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
427:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
401:
397:
396:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
371:
367:
362:
358:
355:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
337:
334:
333:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
237:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:Rubbish. Per
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
186:
182:
178:
169:
168:
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
1328:WP:OWNERSHIP
1324:
1321:Final review
1257:
1255:
1253:
1240:
1228:Ilovetopaint
1205:
1201:
1183:Garagepunk66
1127:Ilovetopaint
1102:Ilovetopaint
1077:
1069:
1066:Light shows:
1065:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1030:Garagepunk66
1015:Ilovetopaint
1010:
981:
913:
910:Status query
882:Garagepunk66
877:
826:Ilovetopaint
822:WP:DEADHORSE
793:. Basically:
753:Garagepunk66
718:Ilovetopaint
696:Garagepunk66
686:
682:
678:
612:Ilovetopaint
602:
598:
585:Garagepunk66
548:
528:
516:
495:
477:Ilovetopaint
456:
425:
405:
399:
393:
353:
340:
304:
286:Ilovetopaint
264:page numbers
263:
246:Ilovetopaint
235:
195:Ilovetopaint
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
1254:Sincerely,
1174:millennium.
1153:Garage rock
1149:Garage punk
1140:Garage rock
1132:Garage punk
1098:Garage rock
1094:Garage punk
1086:Garage punk
1007:WP:COATRACK
955:BlueMoonset
919:BlueMoonset
873:garage punk
869:garage rock
692:Garage rock
679:Sgt. Pepper
603:garage rock
599:garage punk
568:Garage punk
525:garage punk
517:garage rock
504:garage rock
461:Garage punk
395:Point Blank
378:garage punk
104:visual edit
1168:the Sonics
1082:avant-punk
683:Pet Sounds
508:proto-punk
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
1258:North8000
1151:” to the
1136:Acid rock
1134:” in the
977:Acid rock
971:Re: Your
465:Punk rock
443:Chillwave
426:Re: merge
400:Woodstock
360:articles.
175:Anyway …
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
1246:article.
1155:article.
687:Revolver
549:subgenre
529:separate
457:Re: punk
447:Art rock
435:Synthpop
431:New wave
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1332:llywrch
1209:llywrch
1061:Llywrch
1045:llywrch
988:llywrch
951:Llywrch
934:llywrch
915:Llywrch
817:"Punk".
608:bands".
532:simple:
409:llywrch
242:source.
147:Llywrch
127:history
108:history
94:Article
814:Wrote.
805:"Rock"
802:Write.
799:Can't.
578:count.
381:words.
305:at all
1034:might
811:They.
708:Read
445:, or
356:tags.
236:large
136:Watch
16:<
1336:talk
1311:talk
1264:talk
1232:talk
1213:talk
1187:talk
1106:talk
1078:true
1049:talk
1019:talk
1011:does
992:talk
959:talk
938:talk
923:talk
886:talk
830:talk
796:You.
757:talk
722:talk
712:and
700:talk
685:and
650:talk
635:talk
616:talk
589:talk
506:and
481:talk
463:and
449:and
441:and
433:and
413:talk
313:talk
309:JG66
290:talk
272:talk
268:JG66
250:talk
221:talk
217:JG66
199:talk
181:talk
177:JG66
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1299:me.
1096:to
1088:to
878:lot
824:.--
808:If.
716:.--
610:"--
496:the
372:"?)
368:, "
244:"--
1338:)
1313:)
1266:)
1234:)
1226:--
1215:)
1189:)
1108:)
1051:)
1021:)
994:)
973:GA
961:)
940:)
925:)
888:)
832:)
759:)
724:)
702:)
652:)
637:)
618:)
591:)
574:).
483:)
437:,
415:)
354:no
315:)
307:.
292:)
274:)
252:)
223:)
201:)
183:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1334:(
1309:(
1262:(
1230:(
1211:(
1185:(
1130:“
1104:(
1063::
1059:@
1047:(
1017:(
990:(
957:(
936:(
921:(
884:(
828:(
755:(
720:(
698:(
648:(
633:(
614:(
587:(
479:(
453:.
411:(
311:(
288:(
270:(
248:(
219:(
197:(
179:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.